Darwin's Illusion

[gnostic]

You've never even really countered my first and weakest argument that all observed change in all life at all levels is sudden.

It's not just weak it's utterly false

It is weak.

But it is stronger than almost any argument anyone has for gradualism or survival of the fittest. It is much stronger than reading the fossil record.

So what about life do you believe doesn't change gradually. Of course IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO ANSWER WITHOUT ASSUMING THE CONCLUSION.

As an "argument" that gradualism exists someone will say "species change gradually" even though it's not an argument at all.

First.

The mechanism of Evolution as proposed and postulated by Charles Darwin and it updated versions modern synthesis (from the 1930s to 1950s) and in its current form, the mechanism is called “Natural Selection”, not “Survival of the fittest”.

“Survival of the fittest”, as I have told you before, was coined by Herbert Spencer, not by Charles Darwin. And “Survival of the fittest” is merely observation of the species fitting into the niche, but it isn’t an “actual” mechanism to Evolution.

“Survival of the fittest” isn’t synonymous with natural Selection, it is just a loose description and observations that some biologists might used.

The problem with “Survival of the fittest”, is people like creationists, and people who have never studied biology before, and apparently, you, is that they have the tendency to misunderstand and misuse “Survival of the fittest”

Second.

The rate of speciation, varied from organisms to organisms, depending on the how much changes to environment.

Prokaryotic organisms or prokaryotes, like unicellular microorganisms of the bacteria domain and archaea domain, appeared to occur to change at faster rates than eukaryotic organisms or eukaryotes, but the quicker rate is illusionary.

This is because some species of Bacteria domain, because each individual bacteria have shorter lifespan, therefore they have the tendency reproduce at much shorter time than any eukaryotes, where a single bacteria might reproduce as early as within 10 minutes (which was observed in labs). Bacteria reproduction undergo cell division called binary fission.

Binary fission is where a single bacteria will divide its cell into 2 daughter cells.

So within a single day, there could be as many 145 generations, and within half a year, there could be tens of millions of generations.

So when specialists target and kill specific strain of bacterial disease with new antibiotics, a new strain may evolve and develop resistance or immunity to the antibiotic, months later. So there could be millions of generations, between time of administering the treatment and when resistance or immunity occur.

Thousands or millions of generations aren’t “sudden” between one strain to another.

When biologists speak of “time” in regarding it could be numbers of years, but in regarding to Evolution, they are talking of “generations”, not just years, centuries, etc.

 

[John53]

Would that matter?

It would add credibility to your statement.

I'm guessing the length of time it has taken you to respond and answering with a question means no.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is what happens when you look at the microscopic through a telescope.

If you ignore the differences in the consciousness, the genetics, and behavior of individuals that survive a bottleneck the cause of the change in species is invisible. If you simply assume the survivors were more fit, stronger, smarter, and naturally selected then you are describing change in species which is an abstraction and doesn't exist in reality.

Studying science and listening to peers is a good thing. Worshipping science and praying to Peers is a bad thing.

There is still no experiment that proves change in species is effective through surviva;l of the fittest or that it occurs gradually.

All OBSERVED change in life is sudden. Most observed change in "species" in the fossil record is also sudden but as I've mentioned many times reading the fossil record is like reading tea leaves.

I would like to mention that I was reading about Hodgkin's Disease lately and the genetic passage affecting a population in Venezuela. Scientists are attempting to understand and combat it. While persistent, these genetic passages are hurtful to the person, not helpful, if it takes over the person's body. So what does that mean? Hodgkin's Disease evidently isn't going away unless scientists find a way to combat it, perhaps even genetically. What does that mean? Mutations aren't always beneficial or helpful to successive generations.

 

[YoursTrue]

First.

The mechanism of Evolution as proposed and postulated by Charles Darwin and it updated versions modern synthesis (from the 1930s to 1950s) and in its current form, the mechanism is called “Natural Selection”, not “Survival of the fittest”.

“Survival of the fittest”, as I have told you before, was coined by Herbert Spencer, not by Charles Darwin. And “Survival of the fittest” is merely observation of the species fitting into the niche, but it isn’t an “actual” mechanism to Evolution.

“Survival of the fittest” isn’t synonymous with natural Selection, it is just a loose description and observations that some biologists might used.

The problem with “Survival of the fittest”, is people like creationists, and people who have never studied biology before, and apparently, you, is that they have the tendency to misunderstand and misuse “Survival of the fittest”

Second.

The rate of speciation, varied from organisms to organisms, depending on the how much changes to environment.

Prokaryotic organisms or prokaryotes, like unicellular microorganisms of the bacteria domain and archaea domain, appeared to occur to change at faster rates than eukaryotic organisms or eukaryotes, but the quicker rate is illusionary.

This is because some species of Bacteria domain, because each individual bacteria have shorter lifespan, therefore they have the tendency reproduce at much shorter time than any eukaryotes, where a single bacteria might reproduce as early as within 10 minutes (which was observed in labs). Bacteria reproduction undergo cell division called binary fission.

Binary fission is where a single bacteria will divide its cell into 2 daughter cells.

So within a single day, there could be as many 145 generations, and within half a year, there could be tens of millions of generations.

So when specialists target and kill specific strain of bacterial disease with new antibiotics, a new strain may evolve and develop resistance or immunity to the antibiotic, months later. So there could be millions of generations, between time of administering the treatment and when resistance or immunity occur.

Thousands or millions of generations aren’t “sudden” between one strain to another.

When biologists speak of “time” in regarding it could be numbers of years, but in regarding to Evolution, they are talking of “generations”, not just years, centuries, etc.

I am NOT speaking of evolution within a certain framework. But no one has really seen or observed fish turning into (ok, evolving) landroving animals. They might speculate but they don't really 'know,' although saying that it definitely happened to evolve. (But they haven't observed the changes that made landdwelling animals from fish.)

 

[YoursTrue]

It would add credibility to your statement.

I'm guessing the length of time it has taken you to respond and answering with a question means no.

Guess all you want, but I don't read everything, respond when I can or want to, and have other things to do. But I find it interesting to hear certain viewpoints and read when i can. Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Does it? If a person that was totally ignorant of the Bible claimed that "Christianity is just a belief that nailing someone to a tree will give them eternal life" a priest would be justified in telling them that they need to learn more about the basics of the Bible.

Just because a priest says something does not automatically make them wrong.

OK. Does it automatically make it right? Do statements from scientists automatically make them right? Of course we know the answer is no. I think it's called common sense.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh, @John53 , I just started reading the thread, couldn't go through -- how many pages? -- lots of them.

 

[John53]

OK. Does it automatically make it right? Do statements from scientists automatically make them right? Of course we know the answer is no. I think it's called common sense.

He made a claim of something Darwin said. I wanted to find out where Darwin made the claim. It wouldn't make it right because Darwin said it but it would help the credibility of his post.

I assumed it was you who made the claim because it was so long ago I asked the question, I'm not sure why anyone else would bother responding unless they new the quote or could read the posters mind. I apologise for that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. Does it automatically make it right? Do statements from scientists automatically make them right? Of course we know the answer is no. I think it's called common sense.

Of course not. But that is a strawman argument on your part and you should know it.

We accept evolution because it has been tested millions of times. That is why there is more scientific evidence for it than there is for gravity. It is an undeniable fact, if one can reason rationally, that life as we now know it is the product of evolution. You could even test it if you learned enough. No one is stopping you from doing so.

I know, the fact that you are an ape bothers you for some strange reason and you would rather believe a myth from the Bible that shows God to be evil and incompetent. Why would you want to believe that? Though most creationists won't let themselves reason rationally when it comes to their myths.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am NOT speaking of evolution within a certain framework. But no one has really seen or observed fish turning into (ok, evolving) landroving animals. They might speculate but they don't really 'know,' although saying that it definitely happened to evolve. (But they haven't observed the changes that made landdwelling animals from fish.)

Do you believe George Washington was a real person? That he did all that is attributed to him? No one alive today ever saw him. There's no video footage of George Washington. We can't prove he existed or did the things attributed to him. All that I have ever heard about him could be a myth or series of baseless stories that people have just told me so often that I believe them to be true from repetition and the conviction of others regardless of the validity of those convictions.

I accept that George Washington existed based on the evidence. That is all we, today, really have.

How is that different than accepting that land animals evolved from a fish ancestry based on the evidence?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There people who are too lazy or crazy or
stupid for the hard work of actually studying
and learning.
Guess we know who some of them are.

They want to just skip all of that, claiming
inspiration, a magic book, or perhaps a towering intellect that launches them out
past everyone else into profound knowledge.

Perhaps all the Sci fi stories of the lone
mad scientist, from Fausts or the Invisible
Man through the Elvis as a young rebel
Chemist movie did something. They got this
nonsensical model in their heads and think
they are like that?

Who knows. I seldom but shouldnt ever
respond to their posts.
It's a bit too much like bear- baiting.

I wonder about people that make up most of what they know and resolutely believe that they have superior knowledge using a pseudoscience of their own invention. I watch them glom onto each other for support in perpetuating personal opinions about reality that have no connection to reality or the subjects they pretend expertise at.

They have the inspiration of ignorance and exercise their right to communicate that ignorance as if it is supported by all the evidence when it is often unsupported and empty.

It doesn't do any good to respond to some of these individuals directly after a point and perhaps your description of bear-baiting is the more apt. But there is also the responsibility of countering these uninformed voices with the facts so that others, less informed, are not so readily drawn into these vast and convoluted Gish gallops and delusional information.

I find it annoying to see that there are pages and pages of unfounded pretense of superior knowledge and position extolled with baseless self deprecation and feigned humility of the humble servant of the truth in an effort to covertly insinuate the genius and finality that is pretended to in their declarations. It is a pet peeve of mine.

 

[Valjean]

This is what happens when you look at the microscopic through a telescope.

Huh?
Science studies all levels of the issue, from population dynamics to genetics.

If you ignore the differences in the consciousness, the genetics, and behavior of individuals that survive a bottleneck the cause of the change in species is invisible.

Who's ignoring genetics or culture? The mechanisms of evolution and adaptation are known, and will apply to both large and small populations.

If you simply assume the survivors were more fit, stronger, smarter, and naturally selected then you are describing change in species which is an abstraction and doesn't exist in reality.

Nobody's assuming these things. The survivors were lucky, and their genetics were what they were.
Nature selects from the population it has. As always, genes of the more reproductively successful increased in the population.

Studying science and listening to peers is a good thing. Worshipping science and praying to Peers is a bad thing.

Who worships science or prays to peers? Attacking the ideas of peers is part of the scientific process.

There is still no experiment that proves change in species is effective through surviva;l of the fittest or that it occurs gradually.

You keep saying this, and it's just plain wrong. There are mountains of evidence for natural selection and gradualism.

All OBSERVED change in life is sudden. Most observed change in "species" in the fossil record is also sudden but as I've mentioned many times reading the fossil record is like reading tea leaves.

Horsefeathers! Gradualism is more common, and the fossil record becomes more complete with every passing year.

 

[Valjean]

And you can't point to a change in life that isn't sudden. You merely believe that change in species is gradual. Despite every argument and your lack of experimental evidence you persist in believing Darwin.

What's with this obsession with Darwin? Medicine doesn't obsess on Hippocrates. Engineering doesn't obsess on Hero. Astronomy doesn't obsess on Ptolemy.

Biology has progressed considerably since Darwin. Please get with the program. Why do you think biologists don't believe your sudden change hypothesis? Why are biology textbooks full of examples of gradualism?

Despite the fact that "species" is an abstraction and no "species" in the "fossil record" is seen to change gradually you still believe.

And for the hundredth time, this is just hogwash.
Where do you come up with this nonsense?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He made a claim of something Darwin said. I wanted to find out where Darwin made the claim. It wouldn't make it right because Darwin said it but it would help the credibility of his post.

I assumed it was you who made the claim because it was so long ago I asked the question, I'm not sure why anyone else would bother responding unless they new the quote or could read the posters mind. I apologise for that.

On this thread you will see opinions and claims that run from simple ignorance to the ridiculous. Where disagreement among scientists is built up all out of proportion and twisted to a claim that it means we don't have a theory of evolution. In turn, this means that anything anyone believes wins by default. As if that makes any sense. As if confounding a theory causes science to stop looking and learning and leads to automatic collapse of the disciplines.

Or wild claims like all observed change in biology is sudden. That makes no sense and flies in the face of observation and experiment. Common sense tells us how ridiculous such claims are. But it is repeated ungarnished with any logic or evidence as if it is a fact.

Such things become empty mantras to chant as if taking a queue from Dorothy will get them all back to Kansas.

 

[Valjean]

Despite the fact that even the science of biology is moving away from Darwin you still support Darwin

Science is progressing, but Darwin's discovery of natural selection still stands strong.

 

[Valjean]

I would like to mention that I was reading about Hodgkin's Disease lately and the genetic passage affecting a population in Venezuela. Scientists are attempting to understand and combat it. While persistent, these genetic passages are hurtful to the person, not helpful, if it takes over the person's body. So what does that mean? Hodgkin's Disease evidently isn't going away unless scientists find a way to combat it, perhaps even genetically. What does that mean? Mutations aren't always beneficial or helpful to successive generations.

???????????????????????
Your point?

Mutations can be harmful, helpful or neutral, and their utility often depends on the setting or niche they find themselves in. Every schoolchild knows this, I always assumed.

 

[rational experiences]

I believe men said I describe name all things anywhere. Even in out of space. As a human.

I said I'm human. I named myself human.

Theists aren't scientists.

They make up stories comparing information by self categorised topic and subjects.

Human chosen.

So if human men say my egotism is extensively expressed he proves it by saying..... I give myself permission to name anything.

He looks at humans.

He knows every human for however long are baby humans and adults.

The same for apes monkeys.

Now a scientists human consciousness is single minded humans. A small human population actually. Everyone else indoctrinated.

If a human chooses to compare a human to an ape. They can only do so whilst living.

All humans die. Consciousness says as the scientist. When I die apes and monkeys are still living after I die.

He doesn't talk about family. Humans. As science doesn't use human sex in their scientific theories. Reason being they can't.

Meaning they cannot use self presence in a thesis. Knowing they'd be lying. So it's all past tense only.

Based on I must prove I'm correct.

It's all about the past.

Technology his science choice was the past.

Twice he nearly destroyed all life on earth as machine science not studying biology was proven wrong.

Not the subject he pursues about machine science being correct.

His pursuit biology enlargements of small cells. Proved enlarging hadn't changed the cell structure or pattern.

Enlargement in ark attack japeth. Three man term false gods he him his. Theisms of men.

As gods rock ark was planet earth. Not science in any terms.

Therefore I must prove living biology only is closest by terms scientific change. To increase. Increase in science means added upon only was monkeys.

For humans life safety versus occult God theists of our past.

 

[Valjean]

I am NOT speaking of evolution within a certain framework. But no one has really seen or observed fish turning into (ok, evolving) landroving animals. They might speculate but they don't really 'know,' although saying that it definitely happened to evolve. (But they haven't observed the changes that made landdwelling animals from fish.)

Stop it!

Speciation occurs in populations, not individuals-- and you know this. Speciation occurs over thousands of generations -- and you know this, as well.

Expecting to observe major changes that take thousands of generations to effect is just stupid, so stop dissembling. You know perfectly well that fish don't give birth to land animals. You also know of dozens of transitional forms; of fish adapting to land, and land animals adapting to water.

Only a small number of new species have developed within recent human history. You've seen my links to these, but you apparently choose to remain willfully ignorant.

 

[Valjean]

OK. Does it automatically make it right? Do statements from scientists automatically make them right? Of course we know the answer is no. I think it's called common sense.

And nobody accepts scientific theses on a scientist's word, do they?

You know perfectly well that part of the scientific process is to attack new proposals, and try to disprove them. That's what science does, it's how science works.
Science is not religion. In science, faith is anathema.

 

[Audie]

I wonder about people that make up most of what they know and resolutely believe that they have superior knowledge using a pseudoscience of their own invention. I watch them glom onto each other for support in perpetuating personal opinions about reality that have no connection to reality or the subjects they pretend expertise at.

They have the inspiration of ignorance and exercise their right to communicate that ignorance as if it is supported by all the evidence when it is often unsupported and empty.

It doesn't do any good to respond to some of these individuals directly after a point and perhaps your description of bear-baiting is the more apt. But there is also the responsibility of countering these uninformed voices with the facts so that others, less informed, are not so readily drawn into these vast and convoluted Gish gallops and delusional information.

I find it annoying to see that there are pages and pages of unfounded pretense of superior knowledge and position extolled with baseless self deprecation and feigned humility of the humble servant of the truth in an effort to covertly insinuate the genius and finality that is pretended to in their declarations. It is a pet peeve of mine.

It gets really sick and dangerous when such
people are charismatic, and launch a cult.